Dayewalker (talk | contribs) →Just wondering: Rmv ridiculous metaphor. |
CreativeSoul7981 (talk | contribs) →Generations page and Generation Z: new section |
||
Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
::::: Again, what are you talking about when you say you've been blocked? Your block log shows no blocks. Do you have another account you edit under? [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker#top|talk]]) 23:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC) |
::::: Again, what are you talking about when you say you've been blocked? Your block log shows no blocks. Do you have another account you edit under? [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker#top|talk]]) 23:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Generations page and Generation Z == |
|||
Hi. I have attempted to revert edits to these pages, but an editor keeps changing back the dates for Generation Z with only one book as a source to back up his claims. All sources I have seen, including magazines, demographical research, and technological magazines all use the mid-1990s as the starting date for Generation Z, especially 1995. The editor making these changes is [[User:3bulletproof16|3bulletproof16]] ([[User talk:3bulletproof16|talk]]). I'd like to see what your opinion is on this. Thanks. [[User:CreativeSoul7981|CreativeSoul7981]] ([[User talk:CreativeSoul7981|talk]]) 20:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:38, 24 July 2010
Welcome to my page, and go Celtics! Leave a message for me below, and I'll respond on this page unless you ask otherwise.
Thanks for clarification
I'm not sure what EENG is, but he's targeted all our articles for templates in a kindof vendetta thing. I don't know Watson, but Dr. Fuster actually added GNU language to his site, which was the only copyright problem. Had Watson given a Newbie a few days, this would have been resolved, which is all we asked for. From our trademark practice, I see nothing wrong with what Doc Fuster has agreed to put on his site, but Watson says the law has nothing to do with Wiki policies, which are supposedly stricter than case precedent. Don't get this, but if he's someone important, I suppose we should accept it. We're trying to get help on the actual admin board and another editor is helping mentor us with the EENG situation. We will not give up on Doc Fuster, and will eventually recruit enough editors (above board) who know his background in Neuro to help us get an article back up. We can just do the work, and then give it to a more senior person who can not only judge it vs. policy, but also be much tougher for EENG to spam. Dr. Fuster is a legend in Neuro, and other Wiki pages now point to an orange nothing as they did before we tried this. We don't know him personally, but he was very nice in sending us extensive bio and reference info and links from unassailable, peer reviewed/juried sources like SCIENCE and NATURE. I wish Watson had put this to a vote, or at least given us time to fix it. Best... Phoenixthebird (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- There's some comments up at the ANI thread you started you should probably read. Good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Good point, but when someone is born in 1930, the web (circa 1989) misses a lot of good references, which the principal can steer us to. As long as we can verify the reference, does it really matter who "pointed" us to the original source? This guy has 2,000 references in his PFT Text alone, and has published hundreds of scientific articles in the top journals worldwide for 40 years. We actually did have many references from Google and other sources, which were all deleted when Watson blew the whole thing away. We were adding them madly but I guess the clock ran out. That's not to miss your point-- I'm also of course doing wide and deep searches independent of the subject for each article, but if we're being honest, who knows the sources better than the subjects? Thanks for helping educate me on the process here. Given that we have no relationship with these guys, there's no promotion involved, but again honestly, we wouldn't pick a subject unless they were notable and above reproach in the first place, just like Perry Mason never picked a guilty client! ;=) Phoenixthebird (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Brightstar Corp
Dayewalker,
We meet again. I went on Brightstar's page to see something that I fixed and I see that you edited it. I work at Brightstar and I changed the Operating income because i know it was incorrect. Their operating income is approximately $175 million. You have set the operating income to $3.5 billion. If you knew anything about business or accounting, you would know that operating income is always lower than your revenue. An income statement goes as follows: Revenue - COGS = Gross Profit - Selling, General, & Administrative Expenses (Operating Expenses) =Operating Income + Interest Income - Interest Expense +/- Non-operating income (expense) = Income before taxes - Income Tax Expense =Net Income
Please change this back to $175 million and please do not track all of my changes. I know I made a change before as a joke, but most of the time when I make a change on Wikipedia I am making it to improve wikipedia. Every change that I have ever made on Wikipedia is factual, even the change I made as a joke (the alumni I added to Msgr. Pace is a true alumni and that is his employer). I like Wikipedia a lot, I am a regular user and have recommended the website to many friends. I have also made donations to wikipedia in the past. My intentions are not to destroy wikipedia's product in any way.
Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.20.106 (talk) 05:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for coming here, I reverted the change because it was unsourced and unexplained, and therefore I had no way of knowing whether it was accurate or not. If you have a reliable secondary source that shows the operating income, please add it to the article and make the change. I'm afraid that we can't take your word for it, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is based on facts taken from reliable secondary sources. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Brightstar is private corporation so they are not required to publish their financial information. You will not be able to find their financial statements anywhere on the internet. I am also not allowed to upload their financial statements. The $3.5 billion operating income you have on there is not accurate. Like I mentioned earlier, it is impossible for a company to have a higher operating income than their revenue. Operating income is Revenue minus Cost of goods sold and S,G,& A Expenses. What is posted on there is not a fact and cannot be from a reliable source. You have also changed the key people on the page as well. The key people can be found on Brightstar's website under About Brightstar, Corporate Governance, Board and Management team. Please go to their website to verify this information so that you can revert that change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.9.249.131 (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Question - You do seem to work for Brightstar[1] and live in the Miami area[2], but I see only 13 combined edits (6 of them to this talk page). This edit isn't "factual", as you said every other edit except the "waiter gag" was. Have you made lots of other edits? What other accounts have you used? Doc9871 (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. - The information in the Infobox seems to be derived from sources like this they are virtually identical. Not sure if it's a reliable secondary source or not (they could have copied it from WP, after all)... Doc9871 (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I do work for Brightstar as I mentioned earlier. I am a financial analyst at Brightstar so I have access to the company's F/S. The changes I made to the Key people section are also all correct, you can verify these managers on the company's website. Most of my posts have been made from my home, today is the first time I have posted something at work. The waiter gig was factual, the individual I mentioned is an alumni of Msgr. Pace and is a waiter of T.G.I. Friday's as well (although it was posted as a joke). I did lie in the story I wrote on Dayewalker's page a few months back about the incredibly strong immune system and how he worked at two restaurants at once (which is obvious and was made on a talk page, not an actual encyclopedia page). I do not have a username with wikipedia. I have been using wikipedia for many years but I rarely make any changes. A few years back I made a change on the "efficient market hypothesis" page as I have done a lot of empircal research on the subject. Besides that, everything else has been in the past few months.
One thing I want you guys to note as it seems like you guys are not accounting/finance people, OPERATING INCOME WILL NEVER BE HIGHER THAN REVENUE! Revenue is the total amount of money received for goods sold or services provided. I will give you guys an example. Let's say company ABC manufacturers widgets and sells them for $10 each. Let's assume these widgets cost $4 to manufacture (COGS, which is Direct Labor (the labor of the employees working at the plant) + Direct Material (the raw materials used to create the product) + Manufacturing Overhead (any machinery or other misc costs involved with creating the product) and that the company spends $3 a unit on Selling, General, and Administrastive expenses (marketing expenses, salaries of sales and administrative staff, utilities, etc.). If a company sells 10 units, their revenue will be $100, their COGS would be $40, their Gross Profit would be $60 (60% Gross Margin), their S,G,&A expenses would be $30, and their operating income would be $30 (30% operating profit margin). Operating Income will NEVER be higher than Revenue. As I mentioned earlier, if I do make a change on Wikipedia, 99.99% of the time it will be factual and should not be reverted. I am a big fan of Wikipedia who has made many donations to this website in the past. I am not trying to destroy wikipedia, I use it several times a week and I love wikipedia's product.
Doc, I would also like to know why this post is not "factual". This post was not intended to state any facts or as an educational reference for a particular subject. This post was created to discuss with dayewalker why he reverted my change. It is simply a conversation with Dayewalker to back up my change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.9.249.131 (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Doc, just saw the link you put up. I have never been to that website before. The two sites are virtually identical. Their information is incorrect. Please see my accounting example above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.9.249.131 (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate the clarification (at length) on the operating income. The edit I was referring to not being factual was, "He was and Idiot". Which brings me back to my original question. You use WP a lot, with a lot of other IP's? Are a lot of those edits similar to the edit on Paul Warburg or this? You do agree that both IP's are yours, no? Doc9871 (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The Paul Warberg thing wasn't me. I had actually never heard of Paul Warberg before. Let me finish up a few things here at work, I don't want to stay here much later and I will go home and analyze this. You have me worried that maybe I have a virus on my home computer now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.9.249.131 (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- The Paul Warburg edit wasn't you? Okay... good luck with your computer (this was sent from this same work IP, BTW, not the home IP)! Cheers ;> Doc9871 (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Just a note regarding Hed PE
I don't know if you typed in topic on purpose or not, but that IP is obviously Sugar Bear evading his site ban. Just felt the need to clarify things.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I saw that afterwards, I knew he was topic banned but it had slipped my mind about the overall bannation. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 06:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Breaking references
Hello Dayewalker. The newest IP is from England so it may be a meatpuppet or someone who knows how to manipulate their address. The odd thing is the commands that they are adding to the references which completely fouls up the page. I am not versed enough in wikicommands to understand what they trying to do. Thanks for you vigilance in dealing with this. MarnetteD | Talk 19:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering
Are you ever going to answer my question?—Chowbok ☠ 02:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've clarified again, although your question has been answered many times on the page and in the archives. Dayewalker (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Pardon me Dayewalker, but that is not accurate. Please show Chowbok, and the rest of us who also want to know, a little respect and answer his questions. Please show your integrity by s-p-e-c-i-f-i-c-a-l-l-y answering the call of his questions. Please don't evade the focus of the questions like a politician might.
- You criticize me and block me from editing from my IP address, seek to force me to establish an account, and hold out the carrot that editors with accounts get more respect; but then when you have an editor with an account, you give him no carrot. Rather, you beat him with the same stick of disrespect, fashioned this time into a broom with which to brush aside his questions without answer.75.4.195.159 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've discussed this at great length on the page, and I'm not going to get dragged down into repeating the same old arguments again. Consensus is firmly established, IP, read the archives. As for your accusations you've been blocked from editing, you have not. I have no idea what you're talking about. Dayewalker (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Consensus is NEVER set in CONCRETE. Rather, it can be the minds of some editors that are set in concrete.
- You have not answered his questions. If you truly believe you have, you have fooled only yourself. I am blunt for a purpose. Other than ringing a fire bell in your presence, I don’t know how to get your attention to the truth. You have not answered.
- You are completely disingenuous concerning my blocking. Your “I have no idea what you're talking about” is as persuasive as your misrepresentation that you have answered his questions. Let’s close that issue. Don’t digress.
- Please answer his questions.75.4.195.159 (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Consensus can change, yes, I've discussed that on the talk page before. However, bringing up the same arguments that have been previously discussed over and over again is tendentious editing. Consensus won't change simply because one side of the discussion refuses to stop talking.
- Please answer his questions.75.4.195.159 (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Again, what are you talking about when you say you've been blocked? Your block log shows no blocks. Do you have another account you edit under? Dayewalker (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Generations page and Generation Z
Hi. I have attempted to revert edits to these pages, but an editor keeps changing back the dates for Generation Z with only one book as a source to back up his claims. All sources I have seen, including magazines, demographical research, and technological magazines all use the mid-1990s as the starting date for Generation Z, especially 1995. The editor making these changes is 3bulletproof16 (talk). I'd like to see what your opinion is on this. Thanks. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)